Arctic Sea Ice Shrinks to Record Low

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MsMofoGone

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
26,742
Location
Where is not important...
Arctic Sea Ice Shrinks to Record Low
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer
2 hours ago



WASHINGTON - There was less sea ice in the Arctic on Friday than ever before on record, and the melting is continuing, the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported.

"Today is a historic day," said Mark Serreze, a senior research scientist at the center. "This is the least sea ice we've ever seen in the satellite record and we have another month left to go in the melt season this year."

Satellite measurements showed 2.02 million square miles of ice in the Arctic, falling below the Sept. 21, 2005, record minimum of 2.05 million square miles, the agency said.

Sea ice is particularly low in the East Siberian side of the Arctic and the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska, the center reported.

Ice in the Canadian Archipelago is also quite low. Along the Atlantic side of the Arctic Ocean, sea ice extent is not as unusually low, but there is still less than normal, according to the center located in Boulder, Colo.

The snow and ice center is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado. It receives support from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation.

Scientists began monitoring the extent of Arctic sea ice in the 1970s when satellite images became available.

The polar regions have long been of concern to climate specialists studying global warming because those regions are expected to feel the impact of climate change sooner and to a greater extent than other areas.

Sea ice in the Arctic helps keep those regions cool by reflecting sunlight that might be absorbed by darker land or ocean surfaces. Exposed to direct sun, for example, instead of reflecting 80 percent of the sunlight, the ocean absorbs 90 percent. That causes the ocean to heat up and raises Arctic temperatures.

Unusually clear sky conditions have prevailed in the Arctic in June and July, promoting more sunshine at the time when the sun is highest in the sky over the region.

The center said this led to an unusually high amount of solar energy being pumped onto the Arctic ice surface, accelerating the melting process. Fairly strong winds also brought in some warm air from the south.

But, Serreze said in a telephone interview, while some natural variability is involved in the melting "we simply can't explain everything through natural processes."

"It is very strong evidence that we are starting to see an effect of greenhouse warming," he said.

The puzzling thing, he said, is that the melting is actually occurring faster than computer climate models have predicted.

Several years ago he would have predicted a complete melt of Arctic sea ice in summer would occur by the year 2070 to 2100, Serreze said. But at the rates now occurring, a complete melt could happen by 2030, he said Friday.

There will still be ice in winter, he said, but it could be gone in summer.
 
Probably not. They're all far too stubborn.

Oh well, I better start building my boat.
 
Exactly right !! Stubborn is the 'perfect' description. :up:


You know, most researchers don't really 'make an outgoing issue' about Global Warming because they figure it won't affect them in their lifetime ... so, why worry about concerning others about what could happen in the distant future ?? Absolutely ridiculous !! As everyone keeps getting further 'reminders' that ... that 'distant future' is closer than we think. :yikes:
 
Oh hell yea the "distant future" is closer than we think. What about those of us with kids and/or grandkids? What about the futures of their worlds AND that of THEIR offspring? Everyone based solely on that should care and do their own part to contribute to anything and everything we can do to stop or delay Global Warming.
 
I don't like reading this stuff either. It really puzzles me that people can continue to live as they have been without concern for the environment. Many people seem to think nothing will change in their lifetime, or they want "proof" that global warming is happening. If what we are seeing now isn't proof, these people will probably only be convinced when we begin seeing mass devastation. Arrrgh, thinking about this makes me sad. People are so incredibly self-centred and short-sighted.
 
The only reasonable solution to this problem is the most obvious...


Moon bases. Good thing that's happening in 20 years. :rockon:
 
Originally posted by mystery girl
If what we are seeing now isn't proof, these people will probably only be convinced when we begin seeing mass devastation.

Yes, that's the undeniable truth. :up:
But, by the time that 'devastation' became overly-massive, it would be entirely 'too late' to do anything further to 'make a difference'. Although, Global Warming cannot be completely stopped ... the actual 'growth process' of it can be hugely 'reduced' ... depending on how our resources are used. The time is now for scientists/researchers and environmentalists to keep explaining how 'cutting back' on the 'unnecessary use' of our resources can effectively continue the 'reduction' process, and keep Global Warming under better control.
 
Originally posted by elevated_u2_fan
Am I the only one thinking even after all the glaciers melt and the sea level goes up all these idiots with hummers are going to trade them in for big-ass speed boats? :angry:

Why get a speed boat ?? :hmm: They will probably just build their OWN ark, instead. :mad:
 
mystery girl said:
I don't like reading this stuff either. It really puzzles me that people can continue to live as they have been without concern for the environment. Many people seem to think nothing will change in their lifetime, or they want "proof" that global warming is happening. If what we are seeing now isn't proof, these people will probably only be convinced when we begin seeing mass devastation. Arrrgh, thinking about this makes me sad. People are so incredibly self-centred and short-sighted.

I actually kinda meant I don't like reading about it because I want to live in ignorance about :reject: It was like the Bird Flu a few years that got really serious, or SARS, both of which went away.

If the whole world could agree on it and bloody do something about it I would be very happy. But it seems there is a fair splash of the population who cbf doing anything yet. There's a guy here in Oz, who won the Aussie of the Year Award last year. Dr Tim Flannery. He works in this field. And he told the prime minister he would give back his award if he did not act soon.
 
First, the Global Warming issues and concerns were discussed ... and now this further happens !! :hmm:





Arctic Ice Melt Opens Northwest Passage
By JAMEY KEATEN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours ago


PARIS - Arctic ice has shrunk to the lowest level on record, new satellite images show, raising the possibility that the Northwest Passage that eluded famous explorers will become an open shipping lane.

The European Space Agency said nearly 200 satellite photos this month taken together showed an ice-free passage along northern Canada, Alaska and Greenland, and ice retreating to its lowest level since such images were first taken in 1978.

The waters are exposing unexplored resources, and vessels could trim thousands of miles from Europe to Asia by bypassing the Panama Canal. The seasonal ebb and flow of ice levels has already opened up a slim summer window for ships.

Leif Toudal Pedersen, of the Danish National Space Center, said that Arctic ice has shrunk to some 1 million square miles. The previous low was 1.5 million square miles, in 2005.

"The strong reduction in just one year certainly raises flags that the ice (in summer) may disappear much sooner than expected," Pedersen said in an ESA statement posted on its Web site Friday.

Pedersen said the extreme retreat this year suggested the passage could fully open sooner than expected _ but ESA did not say when that might be. Efforts to contact ESA officials in Paris and Noordwik, the Netherlands, were unsuccessful Saturday.

A U.N. panel on climate change has predicted that polar regions could be virtually free of ice by the summer of 2070 because of rising temperatures and sea ice decline, ESA noted.

Russia, Norway, Denmark, Canada and the United States are among countries in a race to secure rights to the Arctic that heated up last month when Russia sent two small submarines to plant its national flag under the North Pole. A U.S. study has suggested as much as 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas could be hidden in the area.

Environmentalists fear increased maritime traffic and efforts to tap natural resources in the area could one day lead to oil spills and harm regional wildlife.

Until now, the passage has been expected to remain closed even during reduced ice cover by multiyear ice pack _ sea ice that remains through one or more summers, ESA said.

Researcher Claes Ragner of Norway's Fridtjof Nansen Institute, which works on Arctic environmental and political issues, said for now, the new opening has only symbolic meaning for the future of sea transport.

"Routes between Scandinavia and Japan could be almost halved, and a stable and reliable route would mean a lot to certain regions," he said by phone. But even if the passage is opening up and polar ice continues to melt, it will take years for such routes to be regular, he said.

"It won't be ice-free all year around and it won't be a stable route all year," Ragner said. "The greatest wish for sea transportation is streamlined and stable routes."

"Shorter transport routes means less pollution if you can ship products from A to B on the shortest route," he said, "but the fact that the polar ice is melting away is not good for the world in that we're losing the Arctic and the animal life there."

The opening observed this week was not the most direct waterway, ESA said. That would be through northern Canada along the coast of Siberia, which remains partially blocked.
 
Yeah, there's a big dispute brewing between Canada and the US.

The whole passage is within our territorial waters, and naturally Canada wants sovereignty over it based on that fact. But the US claims that it's by definition an "international waterway" and that Canada can't restrict or prevent anybody from using it.

Basically the United States wants to bully Canada into letting ships that are too big for the Panama Canal pass through for free, while they hold an occupied piece of land in a foreign nation (Panama) and charge ridiculous tolls for passing through their canal.

Bastards. :madwife:
 
DaveC said:
Basically the United States wants to bully Canada into letting ships that are too big for the Panama Canal pass through for free, while they hold an occupied piece of land in a foreign nation (Panama) and charge ridiculous tolls for passing through their canal.

Bastards. :madwife:

Not to nitpick, but Panama has been in charge of the Panama Canal since December 31, 1999, as a result of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties in 1977.

But the promise of free passage is probably a lot of their motivations, yes.
 
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle

Having read a lot more deeply into this whole thing recently, and seeing the above video, it's become fairly obvious what's going on here with the whole global warming debate.

Just see for yourselves. Even if you don't care one way or another, that video is well worth watching simply for being one of the best documentaries I've seen in a long time.
 
Lancemc said:
Even if you don't care one way or another, that video is well worth watching simply for being one of the best documentaries I've seen in a long time.

It's seems as though the documentary did a great job of cherry picking its information to deliver its point, but I guess the music was nice. :shrug:
 
It's just meant to offer some grounded perspective on the issue. It offered about 10 times as much hard scientific data as An Inconvenient Truth, so that's worth quite a bit in itself.
 
Lancemc said:
It offered about 10 times as much hard scientific data as An Inconvenient Truth, so that's worth quite a bit in itself.

Well, I'd certainly question that. Sure, all data can be manipulated to cater to a specific argument, but it's very important for anyone reading this to know that countless numbers of climatologists have discounted and dismissed this film's findings.
 
Lancemc said:
It's just meant to offer some grounded perspective on the issue. It offered about 10 times as much hard scientific data as An Inconvenient Truth, so that's worth quite a bit in itself.

Offered up data yes, but the data is badly manipulated and anything countering their argument is left out. For example, their temperature graphs stop in 1980 or 1990, which makes it look like their was a greater temp increase in the 1920's-1940's than we're seeing today - that is just blatantly false. They chose to present it thay way. Granted, some of the ideas may have some truth in them (radical environmentalism, politicalization of the issue, etc), but I wouldn't formulate my stance on the issue based on that movie because the science isn't that good.
 
angelordevil said:


Well, I'd certainly question that. Sure, all data can be manipulated to cater to a specific argument, but it's very important for anyone reading this to know that countless numbers of climatologists have discounted and dismissed this film's findings.

You are correct sir. Of course, this film is old news and has been discredited. Now that doesn't mean An Inconvenient Truth is gospel either but it's conclusions are certainly more sensible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
 
COBL_04 said:


I actually kinda meant I don't like reading about it because I want to live in ignorance about :reject: It was like the Bird Flu a few years that got really serious, or SARS, both of which went away.

Bird flu has not gone away. More people continue to die each year than the previous year, the fatality rate is about 80%, and it has proven to have already made the leap from bird-to-human transmission to human-to-human transmission. A pandemic remains a "not if but when" situation. Sorry I can't make you feel better about that!

Climate change is really scary. Your countryman Tim Flannery whom you mentioned will be speaking here this fall and I'm looking forward to seeing him. But I was also surprised to learn recently that he supports nuclear power as an alternative source of energy so I want to hear more about that from him because I wonder what he proposes in terms of nuclear waste.

I'm happy to report that the place I just moved into has solar panels and my first electric bill (which was only for 13 days) was only $5. :)
 
More issues about those glaciers melting and the Global Warming fears ... :hmm:




Rising Seas Likely to Flood U.S. History
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
3 hours ago


Ultimately, rising seas will likely swamp the first American settlement in Jamestown, Va., as well as the Florida launch pad that sent the first American into orbit, many climate scientists are predicting.

In about a century, some of the places that make America what it is may be slowly erased.

Global warming _ through a combination of melting glaciers, disappearing ice sheets and warmer waters expanding _ is expected to cause oceans to rise by one meter, or about 39 inches. It will happen regardless of any future actions to curb greenhouse gases, several leading scientists say. And it will reshape the nation.

Rising waters will lap at the foundations of old money Wall Street and the new money towers of Silicon Valley. They will swamp the locations of big city airports and major interstate highways.

Storm surges worsened by sea level rise will flood the waterfront getaways of rich politicians _ the Bushes' Kennebunkport and John Edwards' place on the Outer Banks. And gone will be many of the beaches in Texas and Florida favored by budget-conscious students on Spring Break.

That's the troubling outlook projected by coastal maps reviewed by The Associated Press. The maps, created by scientists at the University of Arizona, are based on data from the U.S. Geological Survey.

Few of the more than two dozen climate experts interviewed disagree with the one-meter projection. Some believe it could happen in 50 years, others say 100, and still others say 150.

Sea level rise is "the thing that I'm most concerned about as a scientist," says Benjamin Santer, a climate physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.

"We're going to get a meter and there's nothing we can do about it," said University of Victoria climatologist Andrew Weaver, a lead author of the February report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Paris. "It's going to happen no matter what _ the question is when."

Sea level rise "has consequences about where people live and what they care about," said Donald Boesch, a University of Maryland scientist who has studied the issue. "We're going to be into this big national debate about what we protect and at what cost."

This week, beginning with a meeting at the United Nations on Monday, world leaders will convene to talk about fighting global warming. At week's end, leaders will gather in Washington with President Bush.

Experts say that protecting America's coastlines would run well into the billions and not all spots could be saved.

And it's not just a rising ocean that is the problem. With it comes an even greater danger of storm surge, from hurricanes, winter storms and regular coastal storms, Boesch said. Sea level rise means higher and more frequent flooding from these extreme events, he said.

All told, one meter of sea level rise in just the lower 48 states would put about 25,000 square miles under water, according to Jonathan Overpeck, director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at the University of Arizona. That's an area the size of West Virginia.

The amount of lost land is even greater when Hawaii and Alaska are included, Overpeck said.

The Environmental Protection Agency's calculation projects a land loss of about 22,000 square miles. The EPA, which studied only the Eastern and Gulf coasts, found that Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, Texas and South Carolina would lose the most land. But even inland areas like Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia also have slivers of at-risk land, according to the EPA.

This past summer's flooding of subways in New York could become far more regular, even an everyday occurrence, with the projected sea rise, other scientists said. And New Orleans' Katrina experience and the daily loss of Louisiana wetlands _ which serve as a barrier that weakens hurricanes _ are previews of what's to come there.

Florida faces a serious public health risk from rising salt water tainting drinking water wells, said Joel Scheraga, the EPA's director of global change research. And the farm-rich San Joaquin Delta in California faces serious salt water flooding problems, other experts said.

"Sea level rise is going to have more general impact to the population and the infrastructure than almost anything else that I can think of," said S. Jeffress Williams, a U.S. Geological Survey coastal geologist in Woods Hole, Mass.

Even John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a scientist often quoted by global warming skeptics, said he figures the seas will rise at least 16 inches by the end of the century. But he tells people to prepare for a rise of about three feet just in case.

Williams says it's "not unreasonable at all" to expect that much in 100 years. "We've had a third of a meter in the last century."

The change will be a gradual process, one that is so slow it will be easy to ignore for a while.

"It's like sticking your finger in a pot of water on a burner and you turn the heat on, Williams said. "You kind of get used to it."
 
verte76 said:
It's Bush and Co's stupidity on the environment again. Damn. :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored:

Well, partly, it is!

It's pretty much a known fact that many of the vocal scientists who dispute global warming get their funding (and fuel for their hot air) from oil companies! The irony! The horror! The stats are overwhelming, in the big picture. For every 100 climatologists, something like 98 are fully on-board with the reality of the issue. The other two? One is probably being paid, and the other is probably crazy.

CBC did a great documentary on this a few months ago called The Denial Machine. You can watch it in full here: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html It's also great because my dad just happened to do the sound recording for it. :wink:

There's no doubt in my mind about global warming. I try to do my very small part by driving a fuel efficient car. On days when it's not raining, I'll usually walk from work to meet up with friends who car pool. Along with that, perhaps the biggest thing everyone can do is lobby their political representatives for meaningful change across all levels of society. It really does make a difference.
 
Back
Top Bottom